How does “safe enough” compare to “compliance”? It doesn't. Not having accidents for a period of time doesn't mean there isn't risk. See these eight machine safety compliance best practices.

With machine safety, how does “safe enough” compare to “compliance”? There's no comparison. The explanation is clearly provided by Bill Hilton, director of health and safety at Georgia-Pacific: “A historical lack of accidents does not imply a current presence of safety. It simply means you’ve been faster than the machine.”

Generally the term “safe enough” means: there’s been no risk assessment, no formal hazard mitigation, no thorough safety function evaluation, and probably no effective engineering of a proper safety solution. If this approach isn’t bad enough, don’t count on it to be well documented either.

Eight best practices follow that might help you better achieve “compliance” versus that downward spiral associated with “safe enough.”On the other hand, to be in “compliance” for a given hazard generally means: a current risk assessment is on file, the hazard mitigation process is formalized, there has been a formal safety function evaluation, and the safety solution was effectively engineered. Therefore, all the organizational puzzle pieces are effectively integrated.

Do you have some best practices you could share which elevate your machine safety program to be in compliance?

Do I have them all? would you add a ninth? Do you have some specific topic or interest that we could cover in future blog posts? Add your comments or thoughts to the discussion by submitting your ideas, experiences, and challenges in the comments section below.